believing in the potential for something to be true? — Heister Eggcart
But you also presuppose a model of space which individuates. That model of space isn't the space itself... And as space is ideal (as opposed to empirically real), how can something ideal be other than of the same kind a model is?No such thing exists. You're just referencing a mathematical model. That model, whether it's accurate or not, is not and cannot be identical to that which it is a model of, otherwise it would be the thing and not a model. I don't know how many times I need to say this.
If you possess mediate knowledge of something called "Euclidean space," or any other kind of space, that's great, perhaps you possess an extra special kind of cognition. But I don't. — Thorongil
Well I don't doubt the Trinity, because I said I believe it. I just don't understand what that means.I'm pretty sure doubting the Trinity is a big no-no for them. — Thorongil
Not sure one is claiming that the potential is true, either. — Heister Eggcart
But you also presuppose a model of space which individuates. — Agustino
how can something ideal be other than of the same kind a model is? — Agustino
lines are not material objects. So they can't be perceived empirically. — Agustino
Meister Eggfart,
Become a Schopenhauer fan, you know it's good for you.
Is it? — Question
I'm not sure. — Heister Eggcart
So it seems you are denying premise (3) [you can't deny 4, that is a conclusion]. So you think non-empirical objects are perceived empirically. I'd say this is just false. Or alternatively, you think that there can be purely conceptual knowledge, void of any perception, such as the geometric objects which are abstracted from perception a posteriori (this is a denial of [1]). If you deny (1), then you have negated S/K's foundations.Yes, but they are derived empirically, and this is where I part company with K/S — Thorongil
What does being mediated by space entail?what we observe empirically isn't space but objects that are in space, which is to say, objects that are mediated, in part, by space — Thorongil
If you know space a priori, in what does this knowledge and perception consist?That being said, it is still true that we perceive and therefore know space, but this perception and knowledge is a priori. What I mean by a priori is not "based on reason alone," but "logically prior to experience." — Thorongil
you think that there can be purely conceptual knowledge, void of any perception, such as the geometric objects which are abstracted from perception a posteriori (this is a denial of [1]). If you deny (1), then you have negated S/K's foundations. — Agustino
What does being mediated by space entail? — Agustino
If you know space a priori, in what does this knowledge and perception consist? — Agustino
An abstraction is not a perception though. Lines are nowhere to be found in your experience. In fact Berkeley did the right thing and denied the existence of abstractions independently of any perception.This is the closest to my view, but I would say that conceptual knowledge, such as what mathematics reveals, is not "void" of any perception, since it is abstracted from perception. — Thorongil
Okay fine that works, but this is no longer Schopenhauer's/Kant's position. Your new position has to reformulate what knowledge consists in, in a framework that is separate from S/K, such that there can be purely conceptual knowledge, or simply denying that mathematics consists in knowledge , or re-conceptualising mathematics along different EMPIRICAL lines (like Berkeley - §122 in Principles), and hence denying that mathematics of any kind as is most often interpreted consists in knowledge.Do not mistake the objects of our experience for objects existing independently of experience. No object can exist independently of experience, for all objects presuppose a subject. So there can be no space as an object that exists independently of experience, which you seem to think. Can there be space as an object that exists in experience? No, because I experience no such object. Can there be a physical space based on geometrical and physical models? Yes, and this, I suppose, would the be 4D space-time of modern physics, but these models are themselves based on experience, which, again, does not contain space as a distinct object within it. We don't experience any such 4D space either, as you have noted before, which means it cannot be said to have any independent existence; it's just something that drops out of the model. That it agrees with our experience does not mean it is our experience or that it must be posited as existing outside of experience. So where does that leave us? I say it leaves us positing that space is a priori. It's not something found in experience and can't exist independently of experience. It's an essential ingredient in our ability to experience at all. — Thorongil
In fact Berkeley did the right thing and denied the existence of abstractions independently of any perception. — Agustino
Okay fine that works, but this is no longer Schopenhauer's/Kant's position. — Agustino
or simply denying that mathematics consists in knowledge — Agustino
What do you mean much of the rest? It certainly affects the overall structure of it, in quite a significant way. That it doesn't affect a lot of the insights Schopenhauer had, sure. — Agustino
I think they should stop believing in them then. I believe it simply based on the authority of the Scripture, and recognise that I can't understand it. — Agustino
Yes, I also agree in fact with this insight. My personal view on metaphysics is probably still closest to Spinoza - one substance with two parallel attributes, thought (idea) and extension (matter). The one substance is the thing-in-itself, and the attributes are the two ways of looking at this same substance. I think this insight is still at its freshest and purest in Spinoza.It doesn't negate the bedrock claim of Schopenhauer's that there can be no object without a subject and no subject without an object. These are correlates. They stand and fall together. Take the subject away and there is no objective world. Take the object away and there is nothing to be conscious of. — Thorongil
This reminded me of this video (note I don't agree with everything there):neutral monist — Thorongil
Yes, you'd need this more Berkeleyan route into it, rather than the Kantian.However, such a world is not even thinkable without presupposing a subject and so cannot be said to exist with certainty. — Thorongil
Yes, because my intuitions don't tell me anything to be honest with youSo, you believe on the basis of authority and not on the basis of your own intuitions? — John
Yes it's not essential for me - doesn't have much practical import - but I believe it, without knowing what it really means.of which you have, somewhat confusingly said both that you are "not big on it" and that you "believe it" — John
How come it makes sense? I don't really understand what "intuitive sense" means... You either understand something or you don't...because it makes the most intuitive sense to me — John
How come it makes sense? I don't really understand what "intuitive sense" means... You either understand something or you don't... — Agustino
Why not? I don't see how "what feels right" is anymore likely to be correct than empirical and rational investigation, in fact quite the contrary. According to "what feels right" everyone has a different opinion, and there is no way to decide what is right. For example, look at us two. For you it is intuitively obvious that the Trinity feels right. For me it isn't. Who is right and how can this be determined? Certainly not by appealing to what feels right, because that's different for both of us, and therefore we cannot determine according to it. We must determine according to what we have in common - reason and empirical investigation.Surely you don't believe that the truth about us can be discovered by empirical investigation or logic, do you? — John
Maybe, but then this doesn't make much sense to me. You always see me around here complaining, especially against Wayfarer, with regards to this mental masturbatory mysticism.All the great religions have asserted, in different ways and with different emphases, the superiority of this way of knowing over the rational discursive intellect — John
Insight gained by the natural light of reason.Where do you think the scriptures come from in the first place? — John
No, I meant point of view as a logical criteria indicating that the thing-in-itself is more fundamental than subject and object, and therefore subject and object are both ideal - not real. Only Substance exists and is divine - the modes and the empirical world are illusory.Can the thing in itself have a point of view? — John
My personal view on metaphysics is probably still closest to Spinoza - one substance with two parallel attributes, thought (idea) and extension (matter). The one substance is the thing-in-itself, and the attributes are the two ways of looking at this same substance. I think this insight is still at its freshest and purest in Spinoza. — Agustino
This reminded me of this video (note I don't agree with everything there): — Agustino
Yes but even Schop. abandons it for thing-in-itself ultimately. And don't forget that Spinoza does have the equivalent of will - it is called the conatus, which is our essence. I think Schopenhauer also anthropomorphises the Will to a certain degree - Spinoza does no such thing, that's why his system remains in my eyes pure.When reading Schopenhauer, however, I thought, and still think, his notion of the will is the best solution. — Thorongil
>:O LOOOL! I never comment on youtube, but I agree with you on those points. He does point out the central bit regarding neutral monism though, hence why I was reminded of it. And its extravagance makes it memorable :-O >:OOh god, I hate that video. The voice, special effects, and music are way too pretentious. I actually think I was banned by the original maker of the video for pointing this out too. — Thorongil
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.